Gene drives are increasingly discussed in the political realm, and how the term is defined therefore has important implications. The opinion piece from Alphey et al. identifies a lack of consensus on the definition and makes explicit changes in how the terminology is being used by some researchers. As such it is a timely invitation for debate. The definition of the term "gene drive" Alphey et al. (1) propose would include naturally occurring selfish genetic elements (SGEs) and natural processes causing biased inheritance. We disagree with this aspect of the proposal, which does not reflect the original use of the term, which related to engineered systems. The altered definition has the effect of emphasizing the similarity of engineered gene drives to natural SGEs by allowing both to be described as "gene drives." The use of this technology brings serious risks—we therefore are concerned that the proposed terminology presents engineered gene drive systems as repurposed natural entities. This unfortunately brings connotations of safety and familiarity that will discourage the necessary scrutiny. We thus regard the proposed definition as problematic in the context of political and regulatory discussions concerning this technology. For example, we find it worrying that an International Union for Conservation of Nature report, which will be influential in the regulatory debate in the conservation community, introduced "gene drive" as "a ubiquitous natural phenomenon".
展开▼
